❓ Mr Millman questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum about unresolved issues from the previous Liberal-National government, particularly regarding the Mining Warden's Court. The Minister details significant delays and a Supreme Court decision overturning a previous ministerial decision due to procedural unfairness.
AnsweredQoN 601Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINING WARDEN'S
COURT — MINES AND PETROLEUM PORTFOLIO
601. Mr
S.A. MILLMAN to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's continued efforts to fix the mess inherited from the
previous Liberal– National government. Can the minister outline to the
house any issues that were left over from the previous government that the
minister has needed to address, particularly in relation to the Mining Warden's
Court and the handling of the mines portfolio?
COURT — MINES AND PETROLEUM PORTFOLIO
601. Mr
S.A. MILLMAN to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's continued efforts to fix the mess inherited from the
previous Liberal– National government. Can the minister outline to the
house any issues that were left over from the previous government that the
minister has needed to address, particularly in relation to the Mining Warden's
Court and the handling of the mines portfolio?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question.
It is a very interesting topic. As the member knows, the former minister left
four Warden's Court matters for me to decide on. One of those was
received by the minister's office on 22 December 2016 and was not
actioned until I became minister. One was received by the minister's
office on 16 December 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. One
was received on 21 July 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. If
members thought that was bad, another one was received by the minister's
office on 29 March 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. Over a year
went by for the companies involved in that dispute before a decision was made.
If that was the worst of it, we would be lucky. If it was simply that the
minister took no action, that would be one thing. One of the recent decisions
of the Supreme Court, delivered in June this year, was for a matter heard by
Justice Pritchard, who overturned a decision of the former minister because his
staff improperly dealt with one of the parties to the matter.
Mr D.J. Kelly : Who was the
minister?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON : Perhaps the
member for Churchlands would like to fess up. On page 6 of Her Honour's
decision, she says —
For the reasons which follow, Mr
Paterson has established that in making the Decision, the Minister failed to
afford procedural fairness to him, and the Decision is invalid as a result.
The decision of Her Honour is very
interesting. It outlines how the minister received a briefing note—I
will read this quote from Her Honour's decision—that
recommended three options to him and the third option was to —
accept the additional responsive
comments from Leopard in the letter sent to you on 30 June 2016. Request [the
Department] exchange these comments with the other affected parties as part of
the submission exchange process, seeking their further responsive comments, and
then forward this matter back to you for your determination.
Instead of doing that, the minister's
office then engaged with one of the parties to the dispute. Two of his officers
sought additional information from one of the parties, and met independently
with one of those parties. The member for Mount Lawley as a lawyer knows that
that is a breach of procedural fairness. The minister then made a decision in
favour of that party.
There is a court procedure. The
court will make a final determination. I understand the decision of Her Honour
is being appealed, and I look forward to the court making a final decision. But
the questions I have to ask are: Why? Why did the staff meet with this party?
Why would senior officers in the minister's office go and have meetings
with one of the parties to a dispute and not tell the other party? Why did that
occur? What was the reason for that? Was there some improper relationship? What
was the cause? Today I have asked the director general of the Department of the
Premier and Cabinet to review this matter, because the courts will decide the
legal matters, but we have to get to the bottom of the reason that this
improper conduct happened in the minister's office. I have asked the
director general to investigate this matter.
Mr D.R. MICHAEL : Mr Speaker.
Mr D.C. NALDER : Mr Speaker.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : I give the call
to the member for Bateman.
Mr D.J. Kelly : Always coming
a distant second.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Water, you are coming in first. I call you to order for the first time.
It is a very interesting topic. As the member knows, the former minister left
four Warden's Court matters for me to decide on. One of those was
received by the minister's office on 22 December 2016 and was not
actioned until I became minister. One was received by the minister's
office on 16 December 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. One
was received on 21 July 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. If
members thought that was bad, another one was received by the minister's
office on 29 March 2016 and was not actioned until I became minister. Over a year
went by for the companies involved in that dispute before a decision was made.
If that was the worst of it, we would be lucky. If it was simply that the
minister took no action, that would be one thing. One of the recent decisions
of the Supreme Court, delivered in June this year, was for a matter heard by
Justice Pritchard, who overturned a decision of the former minister because his
staff improperly dealt with one of the parties to the matter.
Mr D.J. Kelly : Who was the
minister?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON : Perhaps the
member for Churchlands would like to fess up. On page 6 of Her Honour's
decision, she says —
For the reasons which follow, Mr
Paterson has established that in making the Decision, the Minister failed to
afford procedural fairness to him, and the Decision is invalid as a result.
The decision of Her Honour is very
interesting. It outlines how the minister received a briefing note—I
will read this quote from Her Honour's decision—that
recommended three options to him and the third option was to —
accept the additional responsive
comments from Leopard in the letter sent to you on 30 June 2016. Request [the
Department] exchange these comments with the other affected parties as part of
the submission exchange process, seeking their further responsive comments, and
then forward this matter back to you for your determination.
Instead of doing that, the minister's
office then engaged with one of the parties to the dispute. Two of his officers
sought additional information from one of the parties, and met independently
with one of those parties. The member for Mount Lawley as a lawyer knows that
that is a breach of procedural fairness. The minister then made a decision in
favour of that party.
There is a court procedure. The
court will make a final determination. I understand the decision of Her Honour
is being appealed, and I look forward to the court making a final decision. But
the questions I have to ask are: Why? Why did the staff meet with this party?
Why would senior officers in the minister's office go and have meetings
with one of the parties to a dispute and not tell the other party? Why did that
occur? What was the reason for that? Was there some improper relationship? What
was the cause? Today I have asked the director general of the Department of the
Premier and Cabinet to review this matter, because the courts will decide the
legal matters, but we have to get to the bottom of the reason that this
improper conduct happened in the minister's office. I have asked the
director general to investigate this matter.
Mr D.R. MICHAEL : Mr Speaker.
Mr D.C. NALDER : Mr Speaker.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : I give the call
to the member for Bateman.
Mr D.J. Kelly : Always coming
a distant second.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Water, you are coming in first. I call you to order for the first time.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.